Royalty Free VS Rights Managed

[Pete A]

Could someone explain in simple terms the pros and cons of RF vs RM images? Are certain images better in one category than the other?

 

Am I right in thinking that model/property releases must be obtained in RF but not in RM?

 

Your advice please, as I'm more than a little confused.

[Jill Morgan]

Yes, you must have releases to sell RF, or photos that don't require releases, such as nature shots.

 

Almost all my stuff is RM, a few RF shots of animals as there are so many of them, but now, I just list RM.

 

Depending on which licence type they buy, customers can either purchase for a 5 year term for a specific use (website, presentation, etc) or buy in perpetuity in specific sizes for a larger flat fee.

 

RM pricing is done per use for specific paramaters and specific time frame. If the customer wants to use it again, they must pay again.

 

Which to use is up to you. The more unique and interesting the image, RM is better. As many of us know, RM single use can be quite low paying, but RF could put customers off.

 

RF can be expensive if a customer just wants to use it once for a specific purpose, but better if they want to use it many many times long term. Also depends if they are a subscription buyer or a one time buyer.

 

Jill

 

 

.

[John Mitchell]

Something else to keep in mind is that Alamy's RM licenses are now really RM/RF hybrids. Buyers have a lot more usage flexibility than they used to when buying RM images. Couple this with the lower prices for RM and it's easier to see why RM images are probably more popular (for editorial anyway). Having said this, I don't really know much about RF. I only have a handful of RF images on Alamy and none of them has ever sold.

[Paul Mayall]

One of my suppliers in Germany recently asked  contributors to consider offering images as RF over RM where possible as the the buyers are showing more interest and higher sales on RF images.

 

I have always licensed my images as RM,  for the very reasons given by Jill and John.

 

Paul.

[Pete A]

Thank you all, that is very helpful.

[Betty LaRue]

One thing for sure, if you have an unique image, one that no one else has quite like it and one you probably will never shoot again, always list it as RM.

[Cryptoprocta]

Betty is right, though sadly there's nothing you can do on Alamy to protect even the most unique image from being sold for a low amount to a buyer with a deep discount.

[Robert M Estall]

even before engaging the brain, the phrase Royalty Free sticks in my craw. Although terms & conditions spell out otherwise, you know the buyer doesn't read or pay attention. They will just snatch at the notion that they have bought the photo and can do anything they like and for ever. Usually they don't get that much mileage but they just might.

 

Having uttered the words Royalty Free I must now go and wash out my mouth!

[Callie]

One of my suppliers in Germany recently asked  contributors to consider offering images as RF over RM where possible as the the buyers are showing more interest and higher sales on RF images.

 

I have always licensed my images as RM,  for the very reasons given by Jill and John.

 

Paul.

I had a similar thing from a German supplier Paul, saying it had come from the CEPIC conference that agencies had reported finding RF was selling more as buyers were preferring the simpler process of that model. They did try setting some of my images to rf which I refused as they are at alamy rm.

[Paul Mayall]

 

Paul Mayall, on 06 Jul 2014 - 8:10 PM, said:

One of my suppliers in Germany recently asked  contributors to consider offering images as RF over RM where possible as the the buyers are showing more interest and higher sales on RF images.

 

I have always licensed my images as RM,  for the very reasons given by Jill and John.

 

Paul.

 

 

I had a similar thing from a German supplier Paul, saying it had come from the CEPIC conference that agencies had reported finding RF was selling more as buyers were preferring the simpler process of that model. They did try setting some of my images to rf which I refused as they are at alamy rm.

Yes Callie,  it seems like we are sharing the same supplier.

 

Paul.

[Pearl]

RF used to sell for higher prices than RM but I'm' not sure that is true anymore. I stick mostly with RM.

 

Pearl

[Bryan]

RF used to sell for higher prices than RM but I'm' not sure that is true anymore. I stick mostly with RM.

 

Pearl

Certainly been my experience.

[Guest]

Could someone explain in simple terms the pros and cons of RF vs RM images? Are certain images better in one category than the other?

 

 

In the wider market (Alamy is slightly different with all the schemes), there's been a general move in commercial for most work to be RF unless it really has some merit to go as RM. It's been a trend for many years but really quantified with recent Getty moves. RF is easier for agencies to sell and to distribute as there's no rights management associated with it. There's still a demand for RM but the images have to be special, there has to be some bargaining power on the sales dept's side when they are asking for a client to pay significant monies.

 

I set all my basic commercial work to RF unless I've gone the extra mile in producing a file. Basic lifestyle is set to RF as it anything that's got a simpler graphic styling that would be more web targetted.

 

The revenue return on RF v RM depends on how good the images are - no change there depending on license. You can make good money from either.

 

On the flip side there are lots of agencies, especially specialists, who are default RM - nature, science etc because they are mainly dealing in small commercial or (mainly) editorial. Even there, if they have a channel for RF (say a collection on G/C) they will supply RF.

 

Here on Alamy, with less commercial potential, it makes less difference to the license. It is worth thinking about how you wish to place (if you do) the license elsewhere as it has to be consistent. As mentioned, many schemes treat RF and RM the same i.e. single use RF in newspapers. Generally a mix is the way to go but naturally you have to have releases to hand (where applicable) if you go the RF route.

[Pearl]

 

Could someone explain in simple terms the pros and cons of RF vs RM images? Are certain images better in one category than the other?

 

 

In the wider market (Alamy is slightly different with all the schemes), there's been a general move in commercial for most work to be RF unless it really has some merit to go as RM. It's been a trend for many years but really quantified with recent Getty moves. RF is easier for agencies to sell and to distribute as there's no rights management associated with it. There's still a demand for RM but the images have to be special, there has to be some bargaining power on the sales dept's side when they are asking for a client to pay significant monies.

 

I set all my basic commercial work to RF unless I've gone the extra mile in producing a file. Basic lifestyle is set to RF as it anything that's got a simpler graphic styling that would be more web targetted.

 

The revenue return on RF v RM depends on how good the images are - no change there depending on license. You can make good money from either.

 

On the flip side there are lots of agencies, especially specialists, who are default RM - nature, science etc because they are mainly dealing in small commercial or (mainly) editorial. Even there, if they have a channel for RF (say a collection on G/C) they will supply RF.

 

Here on Alamy, with less commercial potential, it makes less difference to the license. It is worth thinking about how you wish to place (if you do) the license elsewhere as it has to be consistent. As mentioned, many schemes treat RF and RM the same i.e. single use RF in newspapers. Generally a mix is the way to go but naturally you have to have releases to hand (where applicable) if you go the RF route.

 

I don't understand how we can get a decent price these days for RF on Alamy.  In the last two years I have had RF sales of 60MB images for $27 and $58.  That is the maximum size of my files so presumably the most I can expect to get for an RF sale whereas I have had RM sales in four figures more recently.  One of those RM images could have been RF as it didn't need releases so I am very glad I chose RM instead.

 

Pearl

[Paul Mayall]

I have had several of my RM images returning yearly usage fees, from book covers to jigsaw puzzles,  fees that i would not have received from RF, there was 1 image i was asked to give exclusive rights for 12 month's, hence a nice fee was paid for this license, again it would not have been possible if it was RF.

 

Paul.

[Allan Bell]

Always been RM would never consider RF.

 

If a library/agent/supplier tried to change the licence that would be the end of our partnership.

 

Allan

[Guest]

 

 

Could someone explain in simple terms the pros and cons of RF vs RM images? Are certain images better in one category than the other?

 

 

In the wider market (Alamy is slightly different with all the schemes), there's been a general move in commercial for most work to be RF unless it really has some merit to go as RM. It's been a trend for many years but really quantified with recent Getty moves. RF is easier for agencies to sell and to distribute as there's no rights management associated with it. There's still a demand for RM but the images have to be special, there has to be some bargaining power on the sales dept's side when they are asking for a client to pay significant monies.

 

I set all my basic commercial work to RF unless I've gone the extra mile in producing a file. Basic lifestyle is set to RF as it anything that's got a simpler graphic styling that would be more web targetted.

 

The revenue return on RF v RM depends on how good the images are - no change there depending on license. You can make good money from either.

 

On the flip side there are lots of agencies, especially specialists, who are default RM - nature, science etc because they are mainly dealing in small commercial or (mainly) editorial. Even there, if they have a channel for RF (say a collection on G/C) they will supply RF.

 

Here on Alamy, with less commercial potential, it makes less difference to the license. It is worth thinking about how you wish to place (if you do) the license elsewhere as it has to be consistent. As mentioned, many schemes treat RF and RM the same i.e. single use RF in newspapers. Generally a mix is the way to go but naturally you have to have releases to hand (where applicable) if you go the RF route.

 

I don't understand how we can get a decent price these days for RF on Alamy.  In the last two years I have had RF sales of 60MB images for $27 and $58.  That is the maximum size of my files so presumably the most I can expect to get for an RF sale whereas I have had RM sales in four figures more recently.  One of those RM images could have been RF as it didn't need releases so I am very glad I chose RM instead.

 

Pearl

 

 

The point is that Alamy put RF into their schemes - $27 sounds like an old HuffPo or mag' - it's not a regular RF license or revenue. 

 

Today's RF sale on Alamy.

 

6 MB

1500 x 1500 pixels

216 KB compressed

 

$137.74

 

Best sale in last few quarters here for RF was $ 271.47.

 

I don't have my best RF on here (at least not direct) but still regularly see $500-600 sales from the wider market. Thankfully a recent $4000+ sale was from an agent that doesn't do RF, so an image that was really a RF image was placed as RM. However, even with that, I still do RF for commercial channels - the revenue is just too significant to ignore and also it gets me around similars issues.

[Reimar]

Something else to keep in mind is that Alamy's RM licenses are now really RM/RF hybrids. Buyers have a lot more usage flexibility than they used to when buying RM images. Couple this with the lower prices for RM and it's easier to see why RM images are probably more popular (for editorial anyway). Having said this, I don't really know much about RF. I only have a handful of RF images on Alamy and none of them has ever sold.

 And vice versa.  I mostly supply RF images.  I've had about a dozen RF images sold with usage restrictions identical to RM.  Clever sales department.  But I agree: on Alamy license type doesn't make a big difference, although for me, RF license prices tend to be higher.

[Ed Endicott]

One of my suppliers in Germany recently asked  contributors to consider offering images as RF over RM where possible as the the buyers are showing more interest and higher sales on RF images.

 

I have always licensed my images as RM,  for the very reasons given by Jill and John.

 

Paul.

 

 

I saw that as well....I've been trying to get out of that contract for over two years because of shennanigans they've pulled.

 

What's interesting is I brought the comment up to the president of CEPIC (different agency) and he indicated that his agency licenses mostly RM images.

[Pete A]

I certainly didn't expect so many replies to the original question. There seems to arguments for both rf and rm, particularly regarding other stock sites. However, if it were put to a vote, I think rm would be the favourite way to go on Alamy.

[John Mitchell]

I certainly didn't expect so many replies to the original question. There seems to arguments for both rf and rm, particularly regarding other stock sites. However, if it were put to a vote, I think rm would be the favourite way to go on Alamy.

 

Good move. RM is the best way to maintain the long-term value of your work IMO.

[MariaJ]

 

Something else to keep in mind is that Alamy's RM licenses are now really RM/RF hybrids. Buyers have a lot more usage flexibility than they used to when buying RM images. Couple this with the lower prices for RM and it's easier to see why RM images are probably more popular (for editorial anyway). Having said this, I don't really know much about RF. I only have a handful of RF images on Alamy and none of them has ever sold.

 And vice versa.  I mostly supply RF images.  I've had about a dozen RF images sold with usage restrictions identical to RM.  Clever sales department.  But I agree: on Alamy license type doesn't make a big difference, although for me, RF license prices tend to be higher.

 

 

Just curious, don't you have to have property and model releases to sell mostly RF (if it's buildings, trademarks, and people)?

[Trevor Wintle]

Something that I find strange is that Alamy seem to be the only stock agency that offer you the option to sell RM. I've looked at other stock sites, Shutterstock, etc, and they only seem to insist on RF where you must upload model and property releases. I could not find anywhere in their pages any option for RM. Because of this, I've only stuck with Alamy. Is this true or am I missing something?

[Guest]

Something that I find strange is that Alamy seem to be the only stock agency that offer you the option to sell RM. I've looked at other stock sites, Shutterstock, etc, and they only seem to insist on RF where you must upload model and property releases. I could not find anywhere in their pages any option for RM. Because of this, I've only stuck with Alamy. Is this true or am I missing something?

 

You need to look a lot harder - most agencies offer RM from Getty, Corbis through to the regional majors, most specialists. Microstocks offer only RF because they operate like vending machines - you can't expect Rights Management if you are paying a dollar an image.

 

I found this brilliantly written old article on the net   http://stockphotostuff.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/so-who-ya-gonna-call-ok-which-stock.html

[woody]

Have to admit I'm struggling with the whole RF thing - I mean why would a buyer pay more for a product that has additional restrictions?  Is it the case that RF is exclusive usage for a period or otherwise?

 

I have everything set to RF (as the images are for sale elsewhere as RF).  It would not make sense (for me) to have them here as RF only as the return is a small fraction of what they would earn otherwise.